Letters to the Editor
-
Paper
With regard to paper, there is no need to use any kind of potato at all. Hemp is excellent for production of paper, requires nothing but water, and paper made from hemp can be recycled 2-3 times as often as paper made from wood.
-
why antibiotics?
I'm not a biologist, but recently a group of high school kids in my area made E. coli bacteria glow in the dark by modifying genes. I'm thinking, why not link the changes you want (a specific type of starch) to the changes you don't that are much more "harmless." You could make them glow in the dark. You could make blue potatoes. Since they won't be used as food, the creepiness factor won't be a problem. And you won't have to worry about things getting in the food chain (and if they do, you can just throw out the blue potatoes before going to market).
I'm sure there's a reason why this isn't done, because I know there are smarter people than me in the world, but if you could address this in a future post that would be great.
-
A couple of things
It's kanamycin, not karamycin.
There are several technical reasons why antibiotic resistance is used rather than incorporation of a coloured marker or a fluorescent protein, but I won't bore you with them. On the other hand, they are the last thing you want to add to a source of paper, which is usually white.
Anonymous
-
antibiotic as a marker
Antibiotics are "selectable markers", meaning that you can kill off all the unwanted (untransformed) cells.
Florescent proteins are often used as markers, they are known as "screenable markers", meaning that provide the engineer with the ability to discriminate among the transformed and non-transformed cells.
Selection is much easier.
-
There is a better way
People are working on this. I have no idea of how much progress they've made.
Check out this guy's research:
http://www.pgec.usda.gov/Ow/OWresearch.html
Methods based on site-specific recombination are being used for the manipulation of transgenes and chromosomes in plants. A major focus is to enhance the efficiency of plant transformation. This includes developing high frequency DNA integration to expedite functional analysis, precise DNA integration into known genome locations for more predictable gene expression, and the removal of DNA that are no longer needed after the gene transfer process.
-
kanamycin not karamycin
thanks for the correction.
-
not to worry
Several reasons that the kanamycin resistance gene in potatos isn't anything to worry about:
1) Kanamycin is mostly not used for clinical applications any more because there are too many bacteria that are resistant to it already. (Note: resistance to kanamycin in bacteria started occurring in the 60s, a good 15 years before anyone was doing any significant amount of genetic engineering).
2) Drug resistance genes are already plentiful in nature. It's the presence of the drug that spurs bacteria to acquire the gene. i.e. If you overuse the drug, you select for cells that have the gene and create large populations of cells with the resistance gene.
European regulations are way overkill here. We're causing far more drug resistance in bacteria by giving cows large doses of antibiotics than all the genetic engineering in the world will ever cause.
-
Interesting topic and letters
It would be interesting to know if anyone has thoroughly examined possible linkages between the antibiotics given to cows to speed their growth, the antibiotic-resistant marker genes used in the genetically modified corn those cows are eating, and the recent rise in e-coli related cases originating it seems from cow manure.
In a similar vein, another interesting topic to consider is the relationship between, e.g., corn root exudates (corn roots exude a lot of material per acre), which have been shown to carry the Bt toxins engineered into Bt corn and therefore in all likelihood the related antibiotic-resistant marker genes present in those plants, and the microbial and insect populations in the hundreds of millions of acres of soil where such crops are now being grown.
In short, it seems probable that more study is called for regarding how GMOs interact with the microbial world, including our own intestinal flora and those antibiotic-resistant marker genes. Especially in light of the fact that scientists until relatively recently believed that genes expressed themselves individually rather than in multiple combinations as we now know they do depending upon the conditions they find themselves responding to. I.e., if genes expressed themselves singularly, GMOs wouldn't be as risky if they could be shown to have been tested in virtually every circumstance (a doubtful level achieved by GMO researchers or commercializers) one might find them growing in, but factoring in gene expression in multiples renders any projected outcome a wishful guess at best.
-
A Better Way
You mention the antibiotic resistance gene being used as a selectable marker and conclude that there ought to be a better way. The good news is there IS a better way. The bad news is that the EU bureaucracy is standing firmly in the way of it! BASF would undoubtedly be bringing the "better way" to market if the entire EU regulatory system for biotech approvals hadn't been at a standstill for a decade. A DECADE, for goodness sake!!!
A quick history: Virtually all the companies experimenting with biotechnology in the early days used an antibiotic resistance gene as a selectable marker. It worked, and there were few alternatives. By the time of the first biotech approvals here in the US, better markers had been found. So, NO ONE in the industry has used antibiotic resistance genes as a selectable marker in a very long time. The commercial products here in the US do not carry antibiotic resistance genes (a few did early on, but they were quickly phased out in favor of ones with better technical performance and less perceived baggage). You might even say the US system of regulated private enterprise worked to benefit all of us.
However, in Europe, the early submissions are STILL waiting for approval. BASF has been waiting for approval for several years. They (and every other company still standing patiently in line with its dossier) cannot replace their application with an updated one, or they will lose their place in line. So, Europe's lack of a working regulatory system for biotechnology has crippled companies' efforts to update their biotech products, and has left the governments there stuck with "old" biotech products while the improved ones are still awaiting their chance to be considered.
It's fashionable to be cynical about technology (especially biotechnology), big corporations, regulatory agencies, and more. We might take a few minutes to be thankful for how our public-private balance lurches along here in the US, getting a lot of stuff right, especially when compared to the EU bureaucracy that struggles to maintain a pulse, squelches private innovation, and consigns its citizens to expensive and/or second-rate products and services.
Finally - the tiny amount of antibiotic resistance gene in a potato (detectable but barely measurable), combined with these potatoes intended for neither food nor feed - make it hard to argue against this approval anyway.
I'm not a biotechnologist, just an interested observer who believes common sense should figure in here somewhere. I figure there's got to be a better way - for the EU to regulate.